Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Xj8sJ-0004gS-EP for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:39:59 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.169; envelope-from=morcos@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Xj8sI-0001n6-DM for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:39:59 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id a13so2737066igq.2 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:39:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.23.80 with SMTP id k16mr5572563igf.26.1414510792896; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.223.146 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:39:52 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alex Morcos To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01538ca057786205067d7505 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (morcos[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Xj8sI-0001n6-DM Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reworking the policy estimation code (fee estimates) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:39:59 -0000 --089e01538ca057786205067d7505 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 RE: 90% : I think it's fine to use 90% for anything other than 1 confirmation, but if you look at the real world data test I did, or the raw data from this new code, you'll see that even the highest fee rate transactions only get confirmed at about a 90% rate in 1 block, so that if you use that as your cut-off you will sometimes get no answer and sometimes get a very high fee rate and sometimes get a reasonable fee rate, it just depends because the data is too noisy. I think thats just because there is no good answer to that question. There is no fee you can put on your transaction to guarantee greater than 90% chance of getting confirmed in one block. I think 85% might be safe? RE: tunable as command-line/bitcoin.conf: sounds good! OK, sorry to have all this conversation on the dev list, maybe i'll turn this into an actual PR if we want to comment on the code? I just wanted to see if it even made sense to make a PR for this or this isn't the way we wanted to go about it. On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos wrote: >> >> Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number an argument to >> rpc call? For instance there could be a default (I would use 80%) but then >> you could specify if you required a different certainty. It wouldn't >> require any code changes and might make it easier for people to build more >> complicated logic on top of it. >> > > RE: 80% versus 90% : I think a default of 80% will get us a lot of "the > fee estimation logic is broken, I want my transactions to confirm quick and > a lot of them aren't confirming for 2 or 3 blocks." > > RE: RPC argument: I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC > interface. I think the default percentage makes sense as a > command-line/bitcoin.conf option; I can imagine services that want to save > on fees running with -estimatefeethreshold=0.5 (or > -estimatefeethreshold=0.95 if as-fast-as-possible confirmations are > needed). Setting both the number of confirmations and the estimation > threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seems like overkill to me. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > --089e01538ca057786205067d7505 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
RE: 90% : I think it's fine to use 90% for anything ot= her than 1 confirmation, but if you look at the real world data test I did,= or the raw data from this new code, you'll see that even the highest f= ee rate transactions only get confirmed at about a 90% rate in 1 block, so = that if you use that as your cut-off you will sometimes get no answer and s= ometimes get a very high fee rate and sometimes get a reasonable fee rate, = it just depends because the data is too noisy.=C2=A0 I think thats just bec= ause there is no good answer to that question.=C2=A0 There is no fee you ca= n put on your transaction to guarantee greater than 90% chance of getting c= onfirmed in one block.=C2=A0 I think 85% might be safe?

= RE: tunable as command-line/bitcoin.conf: sounds good!

=
OK, sorry to have all this conversation on the dev list, maybe i'l= l turn this into an actual PR if we want to comment on the code?
= I just wanted to see if it even made sense to make a PR for this or this is= n't the way we wanted to go about it.




On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Gavin Andresen &l= t;gavinandrese= n@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alex Morcos <<= a href=3D"mailto:morcos@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">morcos@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
Do you think it would make sense to make that 90% number = an argument to rpc call?=C2=A0 For instance there could be a default (I wou= ld use 80%) but then you could specify if you required a different certaint= y.=C2=A0 It wouldn't require any code changes and might make it easier = for people to build more complicated logic on top of it.

RE: 80% versus 90% : =C2=A0I think a defau= lt of 80% will get us a lot of "the fee estimation logic is broken, I = want my transactions to confirm quick and a lot of them aren't confirmi= ng for 2 or 3 blocks."

RE: RPC argument: =C2= =A0I'm reluctant to give too many 'knobs' for the RPC interface= . I think the default percentage makes sense as a command-line/bitcoin.conf= option; I can imagine services that want to save on fees running with -est= imatefeethreshold=3D0.5 =C2=A0(or -estimatefeethreshold=3D0.95 if as-fast-a= s-possible confirmations are needed). Setting both the number of confirmati= ons and the estimation threshold on a transaction-by-transaction basis seem= s like overkill to me.

--
--
Gavin Andresen

--089e01538ca057786205067d7505--